Book Banning, "A light in the Darkness"

I want to thank the Daily Press editors for giving me another valuable topic to write about. 

A light in the darkness

 

Daily Press Opinion dated 5-7-2023.

 

 

The Daily Press offers an opinion. "Book bans dimmish the scope of experiences available to young readers." As one might guess, the Daily Press editors consider book banning to be a "crusade" to narrow the scope of experience available to young readers, and though it will not satiate their curiosity, The Daily Press believes book banning coddles readers instead of challenging them." The Daily Press provides a list of books that may be banned, such as classics like "To Kill a Mockingbird," the "Diary of Ann Frank," or perhaps "1984" by George Orwell. Where some believe these books are identified as sexually explicit. There are other books banned for sexual reasons that The Daily Press refuses to consider. Books like the "Harry Potter" series.

 

 

The Daily Press leaves out other banned books for consideration. An entirely different topic as to race where book banning is still in place today. Such classics as "Tom Sawyer," "Huckleberry Finn," "Gone with the Wind," "The Catcher in the Rye," and "Of Mice and Men." We all know the authors as these well-known classics. According to CNN, Books that touch on race are the most banned books in America today.

 

Another topic of banning the Daily Press refuses to consider; The Daily Press and other news outlets ban topics from their opinion page and cartoon section of the newspaper. These bans are based on race, conservatism, and traditional American values.

 

Another topic The Daily Press editors refuse to consider is cancel culture. Whereby a minority of the population bans and attempts to cancel culture for an opinion concerning race, sex, or politics. A small minority of zealots take upon themselves the idea of revenge by posting poor reviews of restaurants, business shaming, doxing a writer's home address, and in some cases calling a fellow American Citizens' place of work to get them fired from their job and what for, an opinion?

 

Another topic the Daily Press refuses to consider is banning religious books like the Bible or Quran in schools. Jonathan Friedman, the director of the Free Expression and Education program for PEN America, a free speech organization that tracks book challenges, wrote, "To our knowledge, objections to the Bible in the last year have occurred as a reaction to efforts to ban so many books," Friedman said. "In each case where it was banned, it seems to have been inadvertent, and the decision was, to our knowledge, reversed." But in one Missouri district, the Bible was removed temporarily to check its compliance with state law, amid more than 200 other books. That is not common, Caldwell-Stone said but isn't surprising given the new trend in mass book bans across the country. "When you choose censorship as your tool for controlling access to information and controlling individuals' ability to learn more about various ideas," she said, "inevitably it's going to sweep up ideas and materials that you actually agree with." According to Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom director, the Bible has faced sporadic book challenges for years. "If students want to read the Bible, it should be available in school libraries, Caldwell-Stone said. And so should books about atheism or pieces critiquing the Bible, among other religion-related texts." Caldwell-Stone writes, "Part of education is critical thinking skills, understanding all the arguments from all points of view and sorting through them and deciding for oneself what one believes or wants to think about a particular topic," she said. "And so, I think that should be available to readers despite what one group or an individual thinks of those books."

According to Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom director, the Bible has faced sporadic book challenges for years. "If students want to read the Bible, it should be available in school libraries, Caldwell-Stone said. And so should books about atheism or pieces critiquing the Bible, among other religion-related texts." Caldwell-Stone writes, "Part of education is critical thinking skills, understanding all the arguments from all points of view and sorting through them and deciding for oneself what one believes or wants to think about a particular topic," she said. "And so, I think that should be available to readers despite what one group or an individual thinks of those books."

The Daily Press goes on to opine, "Put differently, one is American — adhering to our national commitment to free expression and free speech — and the other is not. Book banning may go by different names but is antithetical to our intrinsic national values." This statement by The Daily Press is hypocritical when the same newspaper bans free expression and free speech from its opinion page. Opinions the paper does not agree with.

The Daily Press concludes its opinion with the following. "Some books are mirrors in which we see ourselves, others are windows to other experiences, but each holds a light in the darkness that book bans aspire to extinguish. We must protect that light at all costs, knowing that keeping a wide variety of books available to young readers will illuminate the path to a better, brighter future."

I would submit that diversity, defined as "a range of things," is lost on the Daily Press. Only The Daily Press (the media in general) can answer for what appears to be the banning of opinion, supports cancel culture, and what may appear to be some but not all books should be banned based on race, sex, religion, and conservative American values. Here, The Daily Press "limits critical thinking skills, understanding all arguments from all points of view."

I want to ask The Daily Press whether banning books (all books or some books the media may disagree with based on sex, religion, race, etc.) is the same as banning opinions and supporting cancel culture. As you are quoted as believing, "banning may go by different names but is antithetical to our intrinsic national values." Cancel culture and opinion writing are the same types of censorship. 

 

Reference: Education Week, Author of "Why the Bible is getting pulled off school bookshelves." Eesha Pendhanker

What are diversity, equality and inclusion?

I wrote this after an article in the Daily Press by NY Times, Stephenie Sauls. 

What are diversity, equality, and inclusion?

Here is an idea to consider, a vision to unite people, and a view to stopping the hate in Virginia and America. Many articles are written today in the New York Times and other media outlets about diversity, inclusion, and equality without genuinely understanding the definitions thereof. I would submit the media writes for a citizenry they believe is ignorant of the facts. To find common ground, we must first manage our biases and define our goals honestly and without preconceptions. We need mass media that writes honestly and adhere to the definitions of adjectives and nouns used to inform. Would this not be a university professor standard?  

The definition of diversity: "A range of things." "A more recent definition would be the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds." 

A Dissident is "a person who opposes the official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state."

Equality is derived from the word equal means:  fairness; we as a collective society should ensure that individuals or groups of individuals are not treated less favorably because of their beliefs. Especially protected beliefs. When I think about equality, I think about the equality of opportunity as a worthy goal of any civil society. 

Equal is defined as a person or thing equal to another, as in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

Inclusion is defined as an environment where everyone feels welcomed and valued. We all have them; We learn to manage our biases. An inclusive environment can only be created once we are more aware of our unconscious biases.

If we can agree to these definitions, then we can communicate honestly with each other. We can write, managing our biases honestly. If you disagree, I can't help you, but my attempt to help you is lost to your own biases you have yet to manage. Each can decide if they will get up and walk out of the cave and into the light. 

An article written by New York Times  Stephenie Saul, published in the Daily Press and other media outlets, seems to be full of bias not yet managed. Let me explain, and I quote Ms. Sauls: " a university of Virginia alumnus and trustee is part of a forceful movement fighting campus programs that promote diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI)." I want each of you to examine the adjectives used to describe; forceful - fighting and, of course, DEI. 

The school's diversity plan. After the death of George Flyod, a convict who, between 1997 and 2005, he was convicted of eight crimes. He served four years in prison after accepting a plea bargain for a 2007 aggravated robbery in a home invasion. His death was attributed to fentanyl and meth use as George was a well-known drug addict, jobless again. Police approached him for trying to pass counterfeit money in a convenience store. It is reported that the police officer and George knew each other as they had worked at the same bar as bouncers. If we are to accept diversity in its most accurate form, we would think about the premise that George Floyd put himself in harm's way by continuing to break the law and almost all of his adult life. We all accept that George did not deserve to die; however, if one is to continue to put themselves in harm's way, sooner than later, harm finds them. This is a diversity of thought in its proper form. When a dissident group like the NY Times and some within UVA decide to ignore the truth, biases ignite, and diversity is lost. Diversity is "a range of different opinions." These opinions should not be used to attack others, yet we see this daily on college campuses. 

Another example is media reports of the white supremacist groups' march in Charlottesville. As vile as the thought of supremacy over others based on skin color disgust me, I am reminding you counter-protestors were bussed in, and some on-campus students attended and committed violent protest that resulted in the death of a woman and contributed to two state police officers' deaths. Had this vile white supremacist group been allowed to protest under constitutional free speech protected rights, who had a legal permit to march, who should have been rescued from counter-protestors, lives would have been saved. Even foul, horrid, hateful white supremacists are part of a "range of different things." They are a group that comes from "socially different backgrounds."  I am amazed that the UVA board of visitors, the city, and professors do not take responsibility, at least in part, for the events that faithful day. I am amazed academia today does not or refuse to acknowledge true diversity.

Diversity "A range of different things." President Ryan worries "about academia freedom and ideology conformity." Yet, most UVA professors identify themselves as very liberal - slightly liberal, and 60.8% are politically left-leaning progressives; moderates, on the other hand, comprise 18.9%, and conservatives account for 20.2%. UVA  seems to promote the atrocities against academic freedom and conformity they pretend to fight. James A. Beacon writes, "The Jefferson Council, an organization on whose board I serve, has compiled abundant testimony, some public and some off the record, that many conservatives at UVa are afraid to openly speak their minds — and are especially fearful of transgressing the official doctrine on Diversity, Equity & Inclusion or its leftist, social-justice underpinnings."  If diversity is the true objective, would the university want more conservative professors to balance the poison fed to our children by left-wing progressives?

In comparison, My analogy of Mr. Ellis is John Adams's representation of British soldiers in the aftermath of the Boston massacre. The Boston citizenry hated Adams for defending British soldiers. The professors of UVa and the media hate Mr. Ellis for defending Jefferson. Defending the British soldiers was noble in action. Limited freedom conjured up by left-wing progressives who attack when they disagree and attack with malice is not real DEI; it is an illusion. We see what appears to be a violent attitude coming from the NY Times article and left-wing counter-protest like what we saw in Charlottesville. We see student counter-protestor violence play out across our college campuses and defended by left-wing progressives. I am not saying Mr. Ellis would support white supremacists or bad policing. I am saying Mr. Ellis would support freedom of speech, true diversity, inclusion, and equality. 

According to Inside Higher Ed, academic freedom is not achieved when 1/3rd of all students do not trust professors and do not give their honest opinions. This is especially true in the relationships between liberal professors and conservatively raised students. After graduating from Hampden Sydney, I remember my son's remarks, "Dad, it is better just to tell the professor what he wants to hear." My white son is now a 24-year-old professional working for Boeing living in Charleston, Sc—a self-sufficient young man who was not good enough for UVA. Yet some attend UVA based on skin color and lower academic achievements. Where opportunities are competitive, like college acceptance, there are those who prefer equal outcomes or to have the opportunity at the expense of others. How do we judge who is accepted and who is not when there is an unequal numerical achievement outcome. We judge based on skin color, and that is not equity. 

My daughter is a speech-language pathologist, a graduate of Longwood, and a graduate student with a full scholarship attending the University of West Virginia. Still, she was not good enough for UVA. Now working for Fairfax County schools in speech, a self-sufficient professional who would call me at night to ask how to respond to left-wing liberal professors' ideology, an ideology my family disagreed with. Counseling my daughter when no one else would on campus, due in part to a lack of professors she trusted to confide in, I advised conservative, traditional values reminding her of Dr. Walter Williams (George Mason) and studying his work to defend her positions. So I ask again, where is the diversity? Where is the inclusion? Our Universities and Colleges fail to deploy true diversity for all, which is what Mr. Ellis is fighting forcibly. 

Equality: Equality tries to obtain opportunities for each individual or group by giving them the same resources and opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. Equal outcomes do not exist and will never exist in a social construct. When we try to obtain social "equal," we are governed by Marxist - communist - perhaps tyrannical government. Yet we are never equal; even then, there are hierarchies. The closest we can come to equality is a capitalist republic. Equal will never exist due to the abstract of human reality. Equal will only exist in math where 1=1. I submit that equality will never be obtained if cultural diversity hinders opportunities or outcomes. That means that each society's culture must have the exact wants. In other words, If I may explain, humans are still tribal and will always be tribal by nature. I have to wonder if I really have to explain this to anyone? Each tribe must want the same things within "the range of things" allowed. This range of things is based on society's moral and ethical expectations. For this to be true, then some freedom is lost; some tribes will lose more freedom than others based on democracy or even Marxism; hence equality can never be equal. 

Example: We raise our families to produce the same outcome. Are our core family units built around the same culture? Do we all go to church? Do we all not go to church? Are all 1-12 grade schools the same, and if not, why? Who is to blame for the inequality of 1-12 grade schools, and can they ever be equal? Are marriage and traditional family objectives the best way to raise a child, and if so, why do some fight this? Please explain how a single mother is better at raising a child than a mother and father. Do we all follow the six simple rules that can lead to a good life lived"? Is one culture better than the other, and if not, why the different outcomes? Dr. Walter Willams would have asked the same questions and did being called a racist by the media and others whose minds are skewed by the progressive left-wing ideology. America was more in tune with each other in the 1950s despite the racial inequality than today, and children were much more likely to succeed then than now—reference: "Race and economics" by Dr. Walter Williams. 

In conclusion:

Would George Floyd still be alive today if he had followed six simple rules of a life lived well? 

Would America be better off if we just followed these simple rules? The answer is yes. 

1. Honor thy mother and father. 

2. don't kill

3. don't steal

4. don't lie

5. don't bear false witness

6. don't covet

You see, 99.3% of our society follows these simple rules while .7% do not. Yet we allow the .7% to dictate to the 99.3%, which is what Mr. Ellis is fighting forcibly.

Media using fear to divide America.

I read your article/opinion in the Daily Press and felt compelled to write. An Article written by Helen Hubrinas explored fear. The article is titled. What's the biggest fear in America? It's each other. Daily Press 4-22-2023. I offer discourse. 

Tennesse legislators: Your assumption is wrong. It's normal now for Democrats like yourself to ignore the truth, and I have given up on mainstream media ever to produce facts but rather narratives. The two Democrats took the legislative floor and invoked what looked to be a possible violent mob of people sitting in the balcony. They seemed to be inciting violence with a bullhorn during a legislative session. The two young legislators, one videoed jumping up and down on police cars in 2020 as a violent rioter, indicate what these two young men represent fearless violence. So if you think there is a fear, you are right; there is a fear of violence these two young men incited against the rest of the legislators. The fact is these two violated the session quorum and were rightly punished. Yet people like you want to bring race into this unruly behavior where race was never the issue. 

Your article reeked of racial tones. "who is black" references a black kid being shot by a "who is white" man,  and yet for the rest of the article, no mention of the color of skin; why is that? Why did the color of one's skin even matter? If your article had been written with a neutral tone, it might have looked like this. A kid was shot by a homeowner who is 84 years old, and I will bet you a jelly donut he will be found mentally incompetent, given his age. What an unfortunate situation, but you bring race into the painted picture; I have to ask why?

What you wrote, or what I took from your article, is that breaking the law is okay to incite a crowd. If that is true, your next article, if you are a woman of true equality, will write about the January 6th  protest like you have written about these two junior Democrats in Tennessee. You will write, "I don't think they were unafraid ---  After all being courageous is the same as being unafraid. It means doing something even when you are afraid." 

I see, and I am sure you will agree, what we saw in Tennesse legislation, what we saw in the summer of 2020 when Philadelphia and other cities burned, and what we saw in Washington on January 6th was simple people being fearless. You may pick and choose who you think is fearless. You will agree each group mentioned was cheered on, and rightfully so, but no, you will pick and choose who to demonize based on your political biases. 

When discussing fear, I suggest you look within and the fear the mainstream media incorporates into each paper, each CNN, FOX, or MSNBC show—the indoctrination of the masses. I blame you for the fear, and when I say you, I am pointing toward your industry and politicians who use fear to divide us as you did with this article. Propaganda seems to be what you sell, not news or the absolute truth. I fear the mainstream media's extreme left-wing fascist view of America. 

Edward Bernays said it best. "If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct, or in our ethical thinking, we are dominated by a relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the strings which control the public mind." Once our society becomes aware of this fact, aware of the few who pull our strings like puppets, we begin to lose fear; we pull the curtain back on the Wizard of Oz to find a feeble old man in the white house who seems to have lost his moral principle and mind. We are to see the mass media's intent to destroy America for an ideology not steeped in traditional American values. 

If you want the fear of gun violence to end, teach high moral virtues and raise the ethical values of our nation as we are plagued by a relatively small number of people which is .7% out of 332,000,000 Americans, who cannot and will not afford the time to learn six basic rules of civilized living. 

Honor thy mother and father

don't kill

don't steal

don't lie

don't bear false witness

don't covet

Taking the God-given rights of self-defense from the 99.3% without our permission is a form of slavery. I choose not to be a slave to the Democrats. I will not fear you as I am cheered on by many to take a stand against left-wing progressives. I am fearless as well, so I am sure you understand my position and applaud my fearless stance less you become a hypocrite. If we can't teach our children these basic ethical standards, the .7% will forever place fear in you. I fear not, for I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees at the feet of Democrats and the tyranny that would follow. I choose freedom over tyranny. I choose high morals; I choose high ethical values; I choose to fight you and your demonic values fearlessly. 

Water an important terrorist threat.

Reference: The Daily Press, 4-13-2023, wrote an opinion concerning our power infrastructure. 

Dearest Daily Press, 

Thank you for giving me so much to write about for my blog for the last ten years. Today marks one of the few times we agree. Ukraine has shown us we can live without power, and while power is important to those who are not self-reliant, we cannot live without water. The American power grid is at risk. There are other more important risks as well. 

Water: To be exact potable water. Every manhole is access to water. Every backflow preventer, every force main that runs through a secluded area of a region, is at risk of poisoning or sabotage. Thousands of miles of pipe and infrastructure are at risk. Not our intakes and treatment plants, as they are at least reasonably secure. I can guarantee you there are simple weapons of terrorism, if initiated, that could poison potable water in every urban center throughout America. With the proper education, terrorism is valid.

"The potential for terrorism is not new. In 1941, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote, "It has long been recognized that among public utilities, water supply facilities offer a particularly vulnerable point of attack to the foreign agent, due to the strategic position they occupy in keeping the wheels of industry turning and in preserving the health and morale of the American populace." Water infrastructure systems are also highly linked with other infrastructure systems, especially electric power, transportation, and the chemical industry, which supplies treatment chemicals, making the security of all of them an issue of concern. These types of vulnerable interconnections were evident, for example, during the August 2003 electricity blackout in the Northeast United States: wastewater treatment plants in Cleveland, Detroit, New York, and other locations that lacked backup generation systems lost power and discharged millions of gallons of untreated sewage during the emergency, and power failures at drinking water plants led to boil-water advisories in many communities. Likewise, natural disasters such as the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes and the 2007 Mississippi River floods caused extensive and costly damage to multiple infrastructure systems—transportation, water, electric power, and telecommunications."

There are solutions to terrorism, natural disasters, hurricanes, and flooding. Still, it is not reducing carbon emissions or mining rare minerals to make batteries, nor is it continuing to buy batteries from countries that use slave labor. It is a new way of conveyance from the home to the treatment plant. It is called effluent sewering. 

Refernce: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/terror/RL32189.pdf 

"on condition of anonymity." How the mainstream media attacks the GOP

April 9th, 2023, New York Times reporters Johnathon Swan and Anni Karni authored a Sunday article printed by the Daily Press. "House GOP lacks unity." 

On condition of anonymity

"According to two people, who said Banks told them about the incident. They spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private discussions."

"Who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private conversations."

"According to a person briefed on one of the conversations who recounted it on condition of anonymity."

This article is a prime example of lazy, narrative-driven speculation and little to no evidence reporting. The entire article's concept is based on private conversations the reporter was not a part of; no proof of as to the conversations even taking place, so they use "on condition of anonymity" to cover their hidden agenda. I have observed this behavior in mainstream reporting for many years now, and this lazy reporting is used to discredit the GOP and others they disagree with. 

This was a hit piece. This entire article is based on anonymity, hearsay, and rumors, where the reporters try to tie anonymity to facts. These reporters are not to be trusted; they offer no proof, just conjecture, which is why the mainstream media should not be trusted. There is no proof of a lack of unity within the GOP. 

When you read an article written by a mainstream media outlet, count the number of times the reporter uses anonymity to create a theme for your reading pleasure. Learn to decipher, break apart the article, and understand where the facts come from to form an opinion or narrative. Are the reporter's conclusions based on proof, facts, accurate quotes, or anonymity? If there are no quotation marks, there is no proof any of the information in the article is true; in other words, there are no printed or video references. You are trusting someone you do not know, who lives in New York and works for a paper that has lied in the past and proven to do so. 

This is why I do not trust the Daily Press Editors. The Daily Press is responsible for the content of the paper. The editors allow articles with what I believe and, based on experience, offer very weak conclusions and conjecture to create a narrative to benefit the Democrat Party. 

Revelations of government, self-defense and social behaviors.

Sometimes it is a simple answer. 

Nearly one out of every 100 people in the United States is in prison or jail. The total population of America is 332,000,000, not counting illegal aliens who hide in plain sight and are sometimes labeled drug dealers and killers after their arrest. 

We hear from Democrats about incarceration. Many are set free with no bail or little jail time to lie, cheat, steal, or kill again. Simple math is revealing, and what you should ask is, what percent of the U.S. population is behind bars? The answer: About 0.7% of the United States is currently in a federal or state prison or local jail.  

I believe in the good of mankind despite evil. I believe the evil at large in America still hovers around .7% of our population who do evil things. In other words, people who go to jail, we hope, will reform and repent their wicked ways, get out, and others follow for whatever reason.

These statistics show 99.3% of Americans are good decent people, in other words, not in jail, at least. These people have not been convicted of lying, stealing, cheating, or killing. We should acknowledge that .7% are in need of help, yet some we should just call evil. The potential for mass shooters to live among us is .1% of our population, which is backed up by the links I am providing. 

Now think about this. The 99.3% allow the .7% to take what is not rightfully theirs from us. Of the .7%, the .1% blame their school, workplace, etc., for making their lives miserable, and they have no way out, so they take revenge. See link. 

When you hear Democrats wanting to further regulate or take guns, nature's first right to self-defense, be cautious. There are ulterior motives, and I guarantee you that Democrats want power over you. The oligarchy thinks they know better than you, more intelligent than you. We know this when parents' right to know how their children are taught is kept a secret. Just ask the last Democrat who ran for governor in Virginia.

Statistics still show a .00015% chance any of you will ever face a criminal with a gun. Remember, 99.3% of the population, I describe them as good people living good lives, are not the issue regarding gun rights or self-defense. The .6% who broke the law and committed a crime less than murder are not the issue. 

It is the.1%, the criminally potential person, who may not have a mental issue but due to bullying in school or workplace, harassment, no conflict resolutions, holding on to resentment, shoots up your school or workplace. Most of these shootings could have been prevented, but the 99.3% don't want to get involved for fear of being called a racist or some other harmful tag given by left-wing progressives, just staying away seems to be the best course of defense. Is saving children worth my job and lively hood? No, it is not; most will take their chances with the .00015%. 

In places where most mass murder-suicides occur, we, the 99.3%, underfund our schools. Schools lack the resources to stop the .1% because we are cheap or stupid; you choose the answer. Remember, according to this article, 99% of these school shootings were done by people wanting to die by suicide or police suicide. Because they felt their lives were not worth living. 

I guess our children are not worth the funds to hire a sheepdog. The idea of teachers and school staff carrying nature's first right to self-defense is shunned by Democrats, and we all know that. 

I must ask teachers, do these children mean so little to you that you are unwilling to conceal carry to protect them? But are you willing to run into a hail of gunfire defenseless and be gunned down alongside the rest of the sheep?  

Oh, by the way, the simple answer is:

Be Kind; the kindness you show may save many lives. 

References:

https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/mass-shootings

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/01/16/percent-incarcerated/#:~:text=Nearly%20one%20out%20of%20every,in%20a%20prison%20or%20jail.&text=We're%20often%20asked%20what,state%20prison%20or%20local%20jail.

How Americans need to respond to the Nashville shooter.

Dear fellow humans,

From my perspective, Monday's Nashville Shooting unfolded over roughly 14 minutes. Police received the initial call about an active shooter at 10:13 a.m. Police killed the suspect at 10:27 a.m.

14 minutes and the Democrats want to take from you what some of us, but not all, ever agreed to give. I am relieved the police in the case responded so fast and never failed to move forward, as we have seen in the past. That said, 14 minutes killed 6-7 unarmed people. 14 minutes without personal protection. Conceal carry by a teacher or on-sight security would have been the best-case scenario in reducing or stopping this awful act of vengeance against Christians. I believe the manifesto will reveal a hatred for Christians.

Remember, this shooter is part of the 1% of the wackos out there when considering all humans. Transgender folks, in my view, are 99% good people, so please don't do anything stupid or settle a score for the sake of a score. If you do, you have lowered yourself to some but not all left-wing progressives' use of vengeance.

The 99% has to arm itself against the 1%, and it is that simple. Arm your selves, understand nature's first right to self-defense, and then go out and steward high moral decisions and even higher ethical values. Only through Kronos and God's law can we obtain or retain our traditional family values that have been bludgeoned by the left for far too long. It is simple, folks, there are only 10 laws you need to follow, and here they are.

Honestly, if you don't believe in God, okay, ignore the first 4 and keep the last 6. If you are too stubborn to follow these laws, you are the 1%.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall make no idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.

5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.